lol

Bomb - good. Very efficient. Kills many.

Truman - bad. Very efficient. Kills many.

It isn't OK to assume that the US would have had no help from other allies. I think a land based invasion would have seen at least Hokkaido occupied by Soviet forces. Which would in turn have led to a much greater US forces presence on the Japanses mainland. This would have benefitted Okinawa immensely!

In retrospect it would have been very interesting to see part of Japan run according to the Soviet communist model. Would North Japan now be included in the Axis of Evil alongside North Korea? Would technologically advanced South Japan have tempted it's Northern neighbour into revolt before 1989? How hot would that front have been during the Vietnam era of Domino Theory politics? Or would the Soviet Union have walked out on Hokkaido like they did with Austria?

In terms of the bomb, perhaps we needed to see how awful it was so we would know not to use it again.

I agree with the above. One would be enough, though...

I'm pretty sure we had this exact thread about 6 months ago. Too bad we can't just dredge it up again.

>Did the atomic bombs save lives or end them? How costly would a U.S. invasion of Japan have been?

Death Toll - Hiroshima: up to 200K, counting long term effects
Death Toll - Nagasaki: up to 80K, counting long term effects

Estimated Casualties, Operation Downfall: up to 267,000 allied fatalities. Does not count Japanese military and civilian deaths, but allied deaths were estimated to be approximately 20% of Japanese deaths. This leads to the possibility of over a *million* dead.

How necessary was the actual invasion of japan?

In the end the atomic bombs ultimately saved the lives of both the United States and of Imperial Japan. The mentality of the Japanese with kamakazi Zeros and banzai charges would have meant that Japanese citizens as well as military men would have defended their homeland. Even school children were making rifles for the front. With stone cold determination like that, only a weapon like the atomic bomb could have broken their will. The cost was that it set into motion the mass production of weapons that could destroy every single creature on the planet, both with the explosion and long-term the radiation. Was it really worth it to use the weapon, no. But if the United States had not developed it, Nazi Germany was incredibly close and the Soviet Union most certainly had the ability to. I truly hate this era of nuclear weapons, as humanity should.

@ Pandarsenic:

Those are NOT direct quotes.Banning a player IS Diplomacy-related, as is discussing WWII in a productive manner.

Let's blow up Bikini Island.

Nuclear weapons are truly awful, but given that the US are still using purple hearts made in preparation for an invasion of Japan, I must say I agree with the decision.

is that actually true or one of those urban myths?

"How necessary was the actual invasion of japan?"

Only necessary to win the war. Why would a country surrender when it isn't beaten yet?

trim, re: Purple Hearts, look here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purple_Heart
http://hnn.us/articles/1801.html

They expected half a million casualties in the invasion of Japan - meaning dead and wounded.

and missing

Japan was doing atomic bomb testing too. We just barely got to it before they did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_atomic_weapons_program

@stratagos cheers i was just curious, you know how sometimes facts can get distorted

They couldn't have deployed the bomb in time. Also, Japan had the crap bombed out of them throughout the later part of the war, so I don't see how they could have continued such a program.

Japan was already beaten. Their fleet was not operational, air force couldn't defend their own cities from strategic bombing. They were cut of from supplies from China and Korea. Almost completely out of fuel. The only thing Japan could do was feed the population. There was no need to actually invade the country, it would stop functioning in a year, or two.

If I were in Truman's place, I'd drop the first bomb, then wait a bit longer with the second. But, of course, there was the need to test both uranium and plutonium variant...

Japan couldn't even feed its populace. Most people were starving, as all food was being diverted to feed the army/air force/navy.

Drop the first, then blockade Japan for a month or two. Then drop the second to give the illusion that the U.S. had more of the bombs.

"If I were in Truman's place, I'd drop the first bomb, then wait a bit longer with the second."

"Drop the first, then blockade Japan for a month or two. Then drop the second to give the illusion that the U.S. had more of the bombs."

Why? The regular bombings continued. Truman should be commended for ending the war as fast as possible with as little loss of life as possible. Your ways would have killed thousands more Japanese needlessly.

Personally, i think dropping the bombs was a better idea than a land invasion. Japanese School Children were training in spear warfare to fight allied landings on the beaches. in the end, it was the Emperor, not the populace, that surrendered following the bombing. It doesn't matter that the country was running out of fuel: there are weapons that don't require fossilized carbon or potassium nitrate.

didn't diplomat promise not to do this again? i'm pretty sure he did.

First reply for details, TBE.

Not commanly known is that Japan had stockpiled supplies and ammo for the invasion, also under ground factories had been built. Also if we had waited a couple of months longer the US and the Command Wealth fleets would have been hit by at least one of the typhoons that actualy hit Japan a few months after it surrendered. Remember the Mongal fleets?

"Common Wealth"

Commonwealth.

Ok